pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09146 · v1 · pith:RX3Y3J5Nnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Molecular dynamic simulation of multicomponent CoCrFeNiMn high-entropy alloy thin film deposition

Oleksandr I. Kushnerov , Sergey I. Ryabtsev , Valerij F. Bashev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 16:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords high-entropy alloythin filmmolecular dynamicsMorse potentialCoCrFeMnNiphase compositionradial distribution functiondeposition simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Molecular dynamics simulation of CoCrFeMnNi high-entropy alloy film deposition reproduces experimental phase composition and lattice parameters.

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

The study uses molecular dynamics to model the deposition of a CoCrFeMnNi high-entropy alloy thin film on an aluminum substrate. A set of calibrated Morse potentials handles the atomic interactions as 50,000 atoms are deposited over 100 nanoseconds at 10 electronvolts each. The resulting 6.1-nanometer film shows a mix of face-centered cubic, body-centered cubic, hexagonal close-packed, and amorphous structures. Analysis of radial distribution functions yields nearest-neighbor distances and lattice parameters that match available experimental results. This demonstrates that such simulations can capture the structural outcomes of physical vapor deposition for these complex alloys.

Core claim

During a 100 ns molecular dynamics simulation, 50,000 atoms of the CoCrFeMnNi high-entropy alloy were deposited onto an Al(100) substrate using Morse potentials with mixing rules, forming a film approximately 6.1 nm thick that contains FCC, BCC, HCP, and amorphous regions; the phase composition and structural parameters determined from radial distribution functions agree with experimental data.

What carries the argument

Calibrated Morse potentials combined with mixing rules for regular solutions that model interatomic interactions in the multicomponent alloy system.

If this is right

  • The method allows prediction of film structure for similar high-entropy alloys without physical experiments.
  • Radial distribution function analysis provides estimates of lattice parameters for crystalline phases in the simulated film.
  • The coexistence of multiple crystal structures and amorphous regions is a feature of the deposited film.
  • Validation against experiment supports use of this potential set for deposition simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such simulations could be extended to test how changing deposition energy affects the phase balance in the film.
  • Results may inform design of high-entropy alloy coatings for wear or corrosion resistance by predicting microstructure.
  • Comparison with other potential types could show if Morse potentials are sufficient or if more advanced models are needed for accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The calibrated Morse potentials with mixing rules for regular solutions accurately describe the interatomic interactions during the deposition process.

What would settle it

An experiment that deposits a CoCrFeMnNi film under similar conditions and measures significantly different phase fractions or lattice constants would falsify the simulation's predictive accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09146 by Oleksandr I. Kushnerov, Sergey I. Ryabtsev, Valerij F. Bashev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Interatomic potential curves for pure Co, Cr, Fe, Ni, Mn, and Al. The Morse potential parameters DAB, αAB, and r0 for interatomic interactions between different kinds of atoms A–B were calculated by using empirical combination rules [30]: 𝐷𝐴𝐵 = (𝐷𝐴𝐷𝐵) 1/2 (2) 𝛼AB = 1 2 (𝛼A + 𝛼B) (3) 𝜎A = 𝑟0𝐴 − ln2 𝛼A (4) 𝜎B = 𝑟0B − ln2 𝛼B (5) 𝑟0𝐴𝐵 = (𝜎𝐴𝜎𝐵) 1/2 + ln2 𝛼𝐴𝐵 (6) The potential parameters determined in this manne… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Deposited CoCrFeNiMn thin film shown at 1 ns (a) and 100 ns (b) of simulation time: ● – Al, ● – Co, ● – Cr, ● – Fe, ● – Ni, ● – Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The deposition and growth of a thin CoCrFeMnNi high-entropy alloy film on an Al(100) substrate were investigated by molecular dynamics simulation. Interatomic interactions were described using a calibrated set of Morse potentials combined with mixing rules for regular solutions. During a 100 ns simulation, 50,000 atoms with an incident energy of 10 eV were deposited, producing a film of about 6.1 nm thickness. The resulting film contains face-centred cubic (FCC), body-centred cubic (BCC), hexagonal close-packed (HCP), and amorphous regions. Analysis of the radial distribution function (RDF) was used to determine nearest-neighbour distances and estimate lattice parameters for the crystalline phases. The simulated phase composition and structural parameters are in good agreement with available experimental data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports molecular dynamics simulations of CoCrFeMnNi high-entropy alloy thin film deposition on an Al(100) substrate. Interatomic interactions are modeled with a calibrated set of Morse potentials combined with regular-solution mixing rules. A 100 ns run deposits 50,000 atoms at 10 eV incident energy, yielding a ~6.1 nm film containing FCC, BCC, HCP, and amorphous regions. Nearest-neighbor distances and lattice parameters are extracted from the radial distribution function, and the authors state that the simulated phase composition and structural parameters agree with available experimental data.

Significance. If the interatomic potentials are shown to be reliable, the simulation provides atomistic detail on the kinetics of phase selection during energetic deposition of a five-component HEA, a regime where in-situ experimental probes are limited. The work could serve as a starting point for exploring deposition-parameter effects on microstructure, provided the model is first validated against independent properties such as cohesive energies, elastic constants, or known binary/ternary phase stabilities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'the simulated phase composition and structural parameters are in good agreement with available experimental data' is presented without any quantitative metrics (e.g., percentage deviations in lattice parameters, phase-fraction comparisons, or root-mean-square errors). This absence prevents assessment of whether the agreement is meaningful or merely qualitative.
  2. [Methods / Interatomic potentials] The description of the interatomic potentials (Morse form plus mixing rules): no calibration details, target properties, or validation against known Co-Cr-Fe-Mn-Ni formation energies, stacking-fault energies, or FCC/BCC/HCP relative stabilities are supplied. Because the headline result (phase mixture) is produced by these potentials, the lack of such benchmarks makes the agreement with experiment difficult to interpret as a prediction rather than a consequence of the chosen functional form.
  3. [Results] Results section on phase identification: the assignment of FCC, BCC, HCP, and amorphous regions appears to rest solely on visual inspection and RDF peak positions. No order-parameter analysis (e.g., common-neighbor analysis, bond-orientational order) or quantitative comparison of simulated versus experimental lattice constants with uncertainties is reported, weakening the structural-parameter agreement claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The manuscript should specify the exact number of independent runs, thermostat/barostat settings, and substrate temperature to allow reproducibility.
  2. [Results] Figure captions and text should clarify how the ~6.1 nm thickness was measured and whether it includes the substrate-film interface.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and rigor where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'the simulated phase composition and structural parameters are in good agreement with available experimental data' is presented without any quantitative metrics (e.g., percentage deviations in lattice parameters, phase-fraction comparisons, or root-mean-square errors). This absence prevents assessment of whether the agreement is meaningful or merely qualitative.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics are needed to substantiate the agreement claim. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit comparisons, including percentage deviations for lattice parameters extracted from the RDF and phase-fraction estimates relative to the cited experimental data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / Interatomic potentials] The description of the interatomic potentials (Morse form plus mixing rules): no calibration details, target properties, or validation against known Co-Cr-Fe-Mn-Ni formation energies, stacking-fault energies, or FCC/BCC/HCP relative stabilities are supplied. Because the headline result (phase mixture) is produced by these potentials, the lack of such benchmarks makes the agreement with experiment difficult to interpret as a prediction rather than a consequence of the chosen functional form.

    Authors: The Morse potentials were calibrated to experimental cohesive energies and lattice constants of the pure metals and selected binaries, but we acknowledge that the manuscript omitted the specific calibration targets and any further validation. We will expand the Methods section to document the calibration procedure and include available comparisons to formation energies or relative phase stabilities from the literature. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results section on phase identification: the assignment of FCC, BCC, HCP, and amorphous regions appears to rest solely on visual inspection and RDF peak positions. No order-parameter analysis (e.g., common-neighbor analysis, bond-orientational order) or quantitative comparison of simulated versus experimental lattice constants with uncertainties is reported, weakening the structural-parameter agreement claim.

    Authors: Phase assignment was based on RDF peak positions together with direct visualization of atomic environments. We agree that quantitative order-parameter analysis would strengthen the results. In the revision we will apply common-neighbor analysis to obtain phase fractions and will report uncertainties on the lattice parameters derived from the RDF. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: MD simulation validated against external experimental data using standard calibrated potentials

full rationale

The paper describes a standard molecular dynamics deposition simulation on an Al substrate using a pre-calibrated set of Morse pair potentials plus regular-solution mixing rules. The output (phase fractions, RDF-derived lattice parameters after 100 ns deposition) is compared directly to independent experimental measurements on CoCrFeMnNi films. No step reduces the reported agreement to a fitted parameter by construction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and the calibration of the potentials is treated as an input rather than derived from the deposition results themselves. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of calibrated Morse potentials (free parameters) and the domain assumption that these potentials plus mixing rules suffice for the multicomponent alloy during energetic deposition; no invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • Morse potential parameters
    A calibrated set of Morse potentials is used to describe interatomic interactions, with values chosen to fit the system.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Morse potentials with mixing rules for regular solutions accurately model interatomic forces in CoCrFeMnNi during deposition
    Invoked to justify the choice of interaction model for the simulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5680 in / 1281 out tokens · 23815 ms · 2026-06-27T16:02:34.679412+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Miracle, O.N

    D.B. Miracle and O.N. Senkov, Acta Mater., 122, 448 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.08.081

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.08.081 2017

  2. [2]

    Y. Zhou, H. Xiang and F.-Z. Dai, High‐Entropy Materials. From Basics to Applications. 1st ed. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley, (2023). doi:10.1002/9783527837205

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527837205 2023

  3. [3]

    Brechtl and P.K

    J. Brechtl and P.K. Liaw, High-Entropy Materials: Theory, Experiments, and Applications. Edited by J. Brechtl and P.K. Liaw. Cham: Springer International Publishing, (2021). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77641-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77641-1 2021

  4. [4]

    Kushnerov and V.F

    O.I. Kushnerov and V.F. Bashev East Eur. J. Phys., 25 (3), 43 (2021). doi:10.26565/2312-4334-2021-3-06

    work page doi:10.26565/2312-4334-2021-3-06 2021

  5. [5]

    Polonskyy, V.F

    V.A. Polonskyy, V.F. Bashev and O.I. Kushnerov J. Chem. Technol., 28 (2), 176 (2020). doi:10.15421/082019

    work page doi:10.15421/082019 2020

  6. [6]

    Polonskyy, V.F

    V.A. Polonskyy, V.F. Bashev and O.I. Kushnerov J. Chem. Technol., 30 (1), 88 (2022). doi:10.15421/jchemtech.v30i1.237109

    work page doi:10.15421/jchemtech.v30i1.237109 2022

  7. [7]

    Firstov et al

    G.S. Firstov et al. Prog. Phys. Met., 24 (4), 819 (2023). doi:10.15407/ufm.24.04.819

    work page doi:10.15407/ufm.24.04.819 2023

  8. [8]

    Girzhon, V

    V. Girzhon, V. Yemelianchenko and O. Smolyakov Acta Metall. Slovaca, 29 (1), 44 (2023). doi:10.36547/ams.29.1.1710

    work page doi:10.36547/ams.29.1.1710 2023

  9. [9]

    Two-dimensional Sentiment Analysis of text

    O.I. Kushnerov, S.I. Ryabtsev and V.F. Bashev Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst., 750 (1), 135 (2023). doi:10.1080/15421406.2022.2073043

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/15421406.2022.2073043 2023

  10. [10]

    Rational Closure in SHIQ

    V.F. Bashev, O.I. Kushnerov and S.I. Ryabtsev Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst., 765 (1), 145 (2023). doi:10.1080/15421406.2023.2215125

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/15421406.2023.2215125 2023

  11. [11]

    Shtablavyi et al

    I. Shtablavyi et al. Phys. Chem. Solid State, 25 (1), 5 (2024). doi:10.15330/pcss.25.1.5-13

    work page doi:10.15330/pcss.25.1.5-13 2024

  12. [12]

    Choi et al

    W.-M. Choi et al. Npj Comput. Mater., 4 (1), 1 (2018). doi:10.1038/s41524-017- 0060-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-017- 2018

  13. [13]

    Gröger, V

    R. Gröger, V. Vitek and A. Dlouhý Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng., 28 (7), 075006 (2020). doi:10.1088/1361-651X/ab7f8b

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-651x/ab7f8b 2020

  14. [14]

    Varvenne et al

    C. Varvenne et al. Phys. Rev. B, 93 (10), 104201 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.93.104201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.104201 2016

  15. [15]

    LAMMPS – a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales

    A.P. Thompson et al. Comput. Phys. Commun., 271, 108171 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108171

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108171 2022

  16. [16]

    Brown et al

    W.M. Brown et al. Comput. Phys. Commun., 182 (4), 898 (2011). doi:10.1016/J.CPC.2010.12.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2010.12.021 2011

  17. [17]

    Deviations from Tribimaximal Neutrino Mixing using a Model with $\Delta(27)$ Symmetry

    W.M. Brown et al. Comput. Phys. Commun., 183 (3), 449 (2012). doi:10.1016/J.CPC.2011.10.012. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals, Volume 769, Issues 7–8, 2025, pp. 762–772. The Version of Record is available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15421406.2025.2504044

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2011.10.012 2012

  18. [18]

    Stukowski, Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with OVITO–the Open Visualization Tool, Model

    A. Stukowski Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng., 18 (1), 015012 (2010). doi:10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012

    work page doi:10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012 2010

  19. [19]

    Nguyen, V

    V.-T. Nguyen, V. Thi Thu Nhu and X.-T. Vo J. Cryst. Growth, 603, 127004 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2022.127004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2022.127004 2023

  20. [20]

    Liang et al

    A. Liang et al. Acta Mater., 257, 119163 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2023.119163

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2023.119163 2023

  21. [21]

    Xie et al

    L. Xie et al. Appl. Surf. Sci., 285 (PART B), 810 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.08.133

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.08.133 2013

  22. [22]

    Kushnerov, V.F

    O.I. Kushnerov, V.F. Bashev and S.I. Ryabtsev Springer Proc. Phys., 263, 419 (2021). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74741-1_28

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74741-1_28 2021

  23. [23]

    Jacobson and G.B

    D.W. Jacobson and G.B. Thompson Comput. Mater. Sci., 205 (January), (2022). doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2022.111206

    work page doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2022.111206 2022

  24. [24]

    Lv et al

    B. Lv et al. Metals (Basel)., 12 (6), 982 (2022). doi:10.3390/met12060982

    work page doi:10.3390/met12060982 2022

  25. [25]

    Hanh et al

    P.T.M. Hanh et al. Results Phys., 19, 103632 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103632

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103632 2020

  26. [26]

    Lindroos et al

    M. Lindroos et al. Chem. Phys. Lett., 173 (1), 92 (1990). doi:10.1016/0009- 2614(90)85309-Z

    work page doi:10.1016/0009- 1990

  27. [27]

    Aslam et al

    I. Aslam et al. Materialia, 8 (September), 100473 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.mtla.2019.100473

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mtla.2019.100473 2019

  28. [28]

    Bonny et al

    G. Bonny et al. J. Nucl. Mater., 442 (1–3), 282 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.08.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.08.018 2013

  29. [29]

    https://www.webelements.com

  30. [30]

    S.K. Das, D. Roy and S. Sengupta J. Phys. F Met. Phys., 7 (1), 5 (1977). doi:10.1088/0305-4608/7/1/011

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4608/7/1/011 1977

  31. [31]

    Sun et al

    X. Sun et al. Acta Mater., 140, (2017). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.08.045

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.08.045 2017

  32. [32]

    He et al

    J.Y.Y. He et al. Acta Mater., 62 (1), 105 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2013.09.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2013.09.037 2014

  33. [33]

    Zhang et al

    H. Zhang et al. Acta Mater., 155, 12 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.05.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.05.050 2018

  34. [34]

    Kumar et al

    J. Kumar et al. Acta Mater., 238, 118208 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118208

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118208 2022

  35. [35]

    Y. Qi, X. Chen and M. Feng Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 791 (May), 139444 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.msea.2020.139444

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2020.139444 2020

  36. [36]

    Zhang et al

    F. Zhang et al. Nat. Commun., 8 (1), 15687 (2017). doi:10.1038/ncomms15687

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms15687 2017

  37. [37]

    Chulist et al

    R. Chulist et al. Materials (Basel), 15 (23), 8407 (2022). doi:10.3390/ma15238407

    work page doi:10.3390/ma15238407 2022

  38. [38]

    Zhang et al

    F. Zhang et al. Entropy, 21 (3), 239 (2019). doi:10.3390/e21030239

    work page doi:10.3390/e21030239 2019