Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Semi-Empirical Kinetic Model for Phase Selection in Rapidly Solidified Multicomponent Concentrated Alloys

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Critical cooling rates for BCC, FCC, and HCP pathways rank which crystal forms first when multicomponent melts are quenched fast.

desk verdict Useful incremental screening tool for HEA rapid solidification; ranking is clear and honest about limits, but rests on hand-tuned BCC/GFA pieces and mostly self-cited cases without sensitivity checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09321 v1 pith:WZTTKRSY submitted 2026-07-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

O.I. Kushnerov , S.I. Ryabtsev , V.F. Bashev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords multicomponentconcentratedalloyshigh-entropyrapidsolidificationcriticalcoolingratephaseselectionmeltviscosityglass-formingabilitykineticmodel
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

When multicomponent concentrated alloys freeze under extreme cooling, the first solid is often not the equilibrium phase but the one that is hardest to suppress kinetically. This paper builds a practical ranking of BCC-, FCC-, and HCP-like crystallization pathways from the critical cooling rate needed to stop each pathway, using melt viscosity that depends on local atomic packing and a continuous glass-forming-ability correction from mixing enthalpy, excess entropy, and size mismatch. The ranking is meant to show when lattice preference can flip relative to the usual valence-electron rule, when phase separation can be frozen out, when several pathways compete and multiphase solids appear, and when glass is likely instead of crystal. The authors treat the tool as a preliminary screen for early-stage kinetic competition in chemically complex melts where interfacial energies and nucleant data are usually missing, not as a replacement for full thermodynamic or atomistic analysis of the final microstructure.

What carries the argument

The pathway-specific critical cooling rate Rc (final expression combining viscosity-controlled prefactor, thermodynamic exponential, and FGF A), driven by a continuous topology-dependent viscosity multiplier P(δr)—especially the hyperbolic-tangent-smoothed BCC form—and a multiplicative GFA index from smooth scores on mixing enthalpy, excess entropy, and atomic-size dispersion.

What would settle it

For a rapidly solidified alloy series where measured early lattice type or amorphization outcome flips with composition, recompute pathway Rc values with the stated elemental tables and fixed GFA thresholds; the claimed ranking fails if the highest-Rc pathway systematically disagrees with the first solid observed or if close Rc values do not track multiphase competition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A semi-empirical critical cooling rate Rc, computed separately for BCC-, FCC-, and HCP-like pathways with topology-dependent viscosity (including a smoothed BCC multiplier) and a continuous glass-forming-ability factor, ranks the kinetically dominant early crystallization pathway under rapid solidification and distinguishes high versus low glass-forming alloys, capturing lattice-type changes that can override valence-electron-concentration expectations and flagging competitive multiphase cases when Rc values are close.

Load-bearing premise

That an effective macroscopic critical cooling rate built from mixture melting points, elemental viscosities near the melting point, a hand-smoothed packing multiplier, and fixed glass-forming thresholds can rank nucleation pathways without interfacial energies, wetting, nucleant density, or chemically specific short-range order.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Preliminary screening of multicomponent melts can rank which simple lattice is most likely to appear first under rapid quenching without full interfacial or diffusion data.
  • Compositions where BCC and FCC Rc values are nearly equal can be flagged as likely multiphase or compositionally sensitive before processing.
  • Alloys with high GFA index and low overall Rc can be prioritized for glass formation; low GFA index raises the cooling rate needed to avoid crystal.
  • Local composition shifts (for example substrate diffusion into a growing film) can be reinserted into the same Rc calculation to predict transient lattice flips during deposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Rc ranking could be used as a cheap filter before expensive molecular-dynamics deposition runs or CALPHAD solidification paths for high-entropy coating alloys.
  • Extending the pathway list beyond BCC/FCC/HCP derivatives to include simple ordered B2 or L12 cells might capture more of the ordered precipitates the authors already observe experimentally.
  • Because the GFA correction is continuous and multiplicative, it could be inverted to suggest which elemental substitution most efficiently lowers Rc toward glass for a fixed base alloy.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates a semi-empirical kinetic criterion for phase selection in rapidly solidified multicomponent concentrated alloys. Critical cooling rates Rc are computed separately for BCC-, FCC-, and HCP-like pathways from a Takeuchi–Inoue-type expression (Eq. 20), with topology-dependent melt viscosity η(Tm) (Eqs. 4–5) and a continuous glass-forming-ability correction FGF A (Eqs. 17–19). A smoothed BCC topological multiplier P_BCC(δr) (Eq. 16) replaces a discontinuous piecewise form. The pathway with the largest Rc is taken as kinetically dominant; close Rc values signal multiphase competition, and low Rc with high GFA_index indicates glass formation. Comparisons with the authors’ prior rapid-quench and thin-film experiments and MD simulations (CuFeMnNi, Al0.5CuFeNiSi0.25, Fe/Cu-rich Cr–Cu–Ni–Mn–Si alloys, Nb- vs Be-containing glass formers, AlCoCuFeNi and Al-enriched CoCrFeMnNi) are used to argue that the ranking can override VEC expectations, capture kinetic suppression of phase separation, and distinguish high vs low GFA.

Significance. If relative Rc rankings are robust, the framework would give a practical, composition-only preliminary screen for kinetic phase competition under rapid solidification when interfacial energies, wetting, and nucleant data are unavailable—complementing static HEA criteria (VEC, ΔHmix, δr) and full CALPHAD/atomistic work. Strengths include an explicit continuous regularization of the BCC multiplier, a continuous multiplicative GFA correction with stated thresholds, and concrete numerical comparisons (including MD early-ordering cases) rather than purely qualitative discussion. The work is positioned appropriately as a preliminary ranking tool, not a replacement for equilibrium or atomistic methods.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (16)] §2.1, Eq. (16): The continuous BCC multiplier is central to pathway ranking, yet its coefficients (18.61, 6.25×10−5, 0.895, 0.1) and tanh transition (center 0.05, width 500) are stated to have been chosen by numerical parametric testing for continuity and boundedness, not from independent viscosity or nucleation data. Several headline cases sit near the decision boundary (Al0.5CuFeNiSi0.25: RBCC=3.89×10^7 vs RFCC=3.344×10^7, ratio ~1.16; similarly close pairs for Cu5CrFeMnNiSi and AlCoCuFeNi). Without a sensitivity analysis of relative Rc (BCC vs FCC/HCP) under modest variation of these coefficients or of the original piecewise branches, it is not shown that the reported lattice-type flips and multiphase signals are driven by alloy physics rather than by the regularization.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (17)–(21)] §2.2, Eqs. (17)–(21): FGF A multiplies Rc by up to P_max=30 using fixed thresholds (H0=−15 kJ/mol, S0=0.1, δ0=0.08) and calibration coefficients f1=0.55, f2=2.0. The Nb vs Be glass-former contrast and the absolute scale of Rc for weak glass formers depend on these choices. The manuscript should either (i) demonstrate that pathway ranking and high/low GFA classification for the reported alloys are stable under reasonable variation of P_max, thresholds, and f1/f2, or (ii) clearly separate absolute Rc (GFA-sensitive) from relative pathway ranking and show that the latter is only weakly affected by FGF A when GFA_index is similar across pathways.
  3. [§3.1] §3.1 and Introduction: Validation is drawn almost entirely from the authors’ prior datasets [12–14,32,33], which also supplied the parameter basis. For a load-bearing ranking claim, at least a small independent test set (literature rapid-solidification HEAs/CCAs with known BCC/FCC/HCP or amorphous outcomes, outside the calibration family) or a leave-one-out style check is needed so that agreement is not circular with the same systems used to motivate the topological and GFA corrections.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1–2.2] Eq. (1) vs Eq. (20): the temperature appearing in the original Takeuchi–Inoue exponential is not fully aligned with T_ref=300 K and the split Φ form; a short clarification of how Φ maps onto the original exp(ΔGmix/RT) would help reproducibility.
  2. [§2.1] HCP cell convention (Nc=6, p≃33.94 vs primitive Nc=2) is explained but could be stated once in a small table of (Nc, ε, p) for BCC/FCC/HCP to avoid reader re-derivation.
  3. [§3.1] Several numerical Rc values are given to many significant figures (e.g., 5.786×10^8) without uncertainty or rounding consistent with semi-empirical inputs; report fewer digits or approximate ranges.
  4. [Throughout] Typographical/spacing issues: “Insuchsystems”, “concentratedalloys”, “rapid-quenched”, missing spaces after commas in places; standard copy-edit pass needed.
  5. [Abstract / §3.2] Explicit statement that intermetallics (Laves, σ, etc.) are out of scope is good (§2.2 end, §3.2); consider adding one sentence in the Abstract so readers do not over-interpret “phase selection.”

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Semi-empirical calibrations and author-only validation weaken independence of the ranking claims, but the kinetic framework is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.1, Eq. (16) and surrounding text]
    "The coefficients in the regularized BCC multiplier were selected by numerical parametric testing to ensure continuity, boundedness, and stable viscosity calculations in the transition region. They are not treated as new universal physical constants, but as semi-empirical regularization parameters that preserve the limiting behavior of the two original BCC branches while removing the non-physical discontinuity."

    PBCC(δr) is not taken from independent viscosity or nucleation measurements; its coefficients (and the tanh center/width) are chosen so calculated η and Rc remain continuous and stable. Relative BCC vs FCC rankings for alloys with close Rc (e.g. Al0.5CuFeNiSi0.25: 3.89e7 vs 3.344e7) therefore partly inherit those regularization choices. Presenting the resulting max-Rc pathway as a kinetic prediction without showing stability under coefficient variation treats a fitted regularizer as if it were an independent physical input.

  2. self definitional [§2.2, Eqs. (17)–(19); Abstract/Conclusions on GFA]
    "The characteristic threshold values corresponding to the midpoints of the smooth threshold transitions are H0 = −15 kJ/mol, S0 = 0.1, and δ0 = 0.08... These threshold values are consistent with empirical parameters commonly used to distinguish solid-solution, intermetallic, and amorphous-forming tendencies in multicomponent metallic systems. ... When GFAindex → 1, the correction approaches unity, corresponding to high glass-forming ability. When GFAindex → 0, the calculated critical cooling rate is increased..."

    FGF A is constructed so that alloys already favored by standard empirical GFA rules (sufficiently negative ΔHmix, excess entropy, large δr) receive GFAindex≈1 and FGF A≈1 (lower Rc), while poor formers are scaled up to Pmax=30. The claim that the framework “distinguishes alloys with high and low glass-forming ability” is therefore largely the embedded empirical scores rewritten as a multiplier on Rc, not an independent kinetic discovery of which compositions amorphize.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction; §3.1 opening]
    "These experimental and parameter datasets provide the quantitative basis for the present work, in which the critical cooling rates for competing BCC-, FCC-, and HCP-like crystallization pathways are evaluated... To test the model, its predictions were compared with experimental and computational data obtained in our previous studies of rapidly solidified and thin-film multicomponent alloys [12, 13, 14, 32, 33]."

    The strongest empirical support for lattice-type override of VEC, kinetic suppression of phase separation, multiphase competition, and GFA contrast is drawn from the authors’ own prior experiments and MD simulations, which the Introduction also names as the quantitative basis of the work. The ranking claim is therefore not stress-tested against independent external phase-selection benchmarks; load-bearing agreement reduces to self-cited cases rather than a separate falsification set.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§2.2, Eq. (19)–(21)]
    "where Pmax = 30 defines the upper limit of the correction multiplier. This value was selected to keep the limiting calculated critical cooling rates in the range characteristic of metallic systems with low glass-forming ability, including pure transition metals such as Ni. ... f1 = 0.55 and f2 = 2.0 are calibration coefficients that scale the thermodynamic and topological contributions to the final cooling temperature of the samples, while Z ≈ 2×10−6 is the empirical prefactor [19]."

    Pmax, f1, and f2 are calibration knobs set so Rc magnitudes sit in expected ranges (e.g. poor glass formers like Ni). Absolute Rc and the strength of the GFA penalty are therefore partly forced by these choices. When the paper then reports specific Rc values and high/low GFA contrast as model outcomes, those numbers partly restate the calibration targets rather than pure out-of-sample kinetic predictions.

full rationale

The model is openly semi-empirical: Rc is assembled from the Takeuchi–Inoue critical-cooling-rate form, a Budai/Chattopadhyay-style topology-dependent viscosity, a hand-regularized BCC multiplier, and a continuous GFA multiplier built from standard empirical thresholds. That is not a first-principles derivation, but neither is the central ranking forced by pure definitional identity (Eq. X ≡ Eq. Y). The main circularity risks are (i) regularization/calibration coefficients chosen by parametric testing so that viscosity and Rc stay continuous and in “characteristic” ranges, which matter for near-tie BCC/FCC cases; (ii) the GFA correction embedding the same empirical glass-forming rules it is then said to “distinguish”; and (iii) load-bearing phase-selection comparisons drawn almost entirely from the authors’ prior experimental and MD datasets that also supply the alloy parameter basis. The kinetic ranking criterion itself (highest Rc = hardest pathway to suppress) is an interpretive convention of the Takeuchi–Inoue approach, not a circular derivation of experimental lattice type from itself. Independent external benchmarks and sensitivity of relative Rc to the regularized BCC branch and FGF A are not shown; that limits independence more than it proves constructional circularity. Score 4 reflects partial self-citation and fitted regularization with remaining independent model content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central ranking claim rests on the Takeuchi–Inoue Rc skeleton plus many semi-empirical knobs: viscosity topology multipliers, a hand-smoothed BCC branch, calibration factors f1/f2/Z, and a three-score GFA gate with fixed thresholds and P_max. Invented constructs are the continuous PBCC interpolant and GFA_index/FGF A objects. Domain assumptions include rule-of-mixtures Tm/volume, Arrhenius elemental viscosities near Tm, and interpreting highest Rc as kinetic dominance without interfacial free energies. Independent external evidence for the new regularizers is limited to qualitative agreement with the authors’ prior experiments/MD.

free parameters (6)
  • Z empirical prefactor = ≈2e-6
    Taken as Z≈2×10^-6 from Takeuchi–Inoue; scales absolute Rc and thus absolute glass/crystal thresholds.
  • f1, f2 thermodynamic scaling coefficients = f1=0.55, f2=2.0
    f1=0.55 and f2=2.0 scale mixing enthalpy/configurational and excess-entropy terms in Φ (Eq. 21); calibration coefficients, not derived.
  • P_max GFA correction ceiling = 30
    Upper multiplier on Rc for poor glass formers; chosen so limiting Rc matches low-GFA metals such as Ni.
  • GFA score thresholds and steepness (H0,S0,δ0,kH,kS,kd) = H0=-15 kJ/mol; S0=0.1; δ0=0.08; kH=1; kS=kd=100
    Midpoints H0=−15 kJ/mol, S0=0.1, δ0=0.08 and k values set smooth logistic gates; literature-inspired but fixed by authors for the continuous index.
  • Smoothed BCC multiplier coefficients and transition = center δr=0.05; width param 500; coeffs as in Eq.16
    Eq. 16 uses 18.61, 6.25e-5, 0.895, 0.1 and tanh weights centered at δr=0.05 with factor 500; selected by numerical parametric testing for continuity/boundedness.
  • T_ref reference temperature = 300 K
    T_ref=300 K normalizes thermodynamic correction to room-temperature final state; modeling choice affecting Φ.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Critical cooling rate Rc from Takeuchi–Inoue form (viscosity prefactor × thermodynamic exponential) is a sufficient macroscopic proxy for kinetic barrier without specifying homogeneous vs heterogeneous nucleation.
    Stated in §2.1; underpins ranking all pathways by a single Rc scalar.
  • domain assumption The pathway with the highest calculated Rc is the kinetically dominant early crystallization pathway.
    Phase-selection criterion in §2.2; converts continuous Rc values into a discrete winner.
  • domain assumption Effective melt viscosity near Tm can be written from elemental Arrhenius viscosities, hard-sphere cell volumes Vc=p r̄^3, and a topology multiplier P(δr) that differs for BCC/FCC/HCP.
    Eqs. 4–12 following Budai/Chattopadhyay-type constructions.
  • domain assumption Alloy melting temperature and molar volume obey the rule of mixtures.
    Eqs. 6 and 22; standard semi-empirical approximation for concentrated alloys.
  • ad hoc to paper Glass-forming ability can be encoded as a product of three independent smooth threshold scores on ΔHmix, ΔSxs/R, and δr, then mapped to a multiplicative Rc correction FGF A.
    Eqs. 17–19; continuous form is original packaging even if thresholds echo empirical GFA rules.
  • ad hoc to paper A tanh-weighted interpolation between low- and high-δr BCC branches preserves physical limiting behavior while removing discontinuity.
    Eqs. 13–16; regularization premise for stable BCC ranking.
  • standard math Standard arithmetic and continuous interpolation (tanh weights, logistic scores) are valid.
    Used throughout model regularization and GFA scores.
invented entities (2)
  • Continuous regularized BCC topological multiplier P_BCC(δr)
    purpose: Replace piecewise BCC viscosity multiplier discontinuity near δr≈0.06 with a smooth interpolant so Rc ranking is not artifactual.
    Defined in Eq. 16 with author-chosen coefficients; no independent measurement of this specific functional form outside the paper.
  • GFA_index and FGF A continuous correction factor
    purpose: Raise calculated Rc for poor glass formers and keep FGF A≈1 for strong glass formers using multiplicative enthalpy/entropy/size scores.
    Eqs. 17–19 introduce a new continuous object layered on empirical GFA lore; validated only via qualitative alloy examples in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-Empirical Kinetic Model for Phase Selection in Rapidly Solidified Multicomponent Concentrated Alloys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZTTKRSY

@misc{pith2026260709321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-Empirical Kinetic Model for Phase Selection in Rapidly Solidified Multicomponent Concentrated Alloys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZTTKRSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09321}
}
read the original abstract

A semi-empirical kinetic framework is formulated for predicting phase selection in multicomponent concentrated alloys under rapid solidification. The approach is based on the critical cooling rate required to suppress competing crystalline pathways and combines topology-dependent ranking of BCC-, FCC-, and HCP-like crystallization pathways with a correction for glass-forming ability. The formulation includes a topology-dependent viscosity correction with a smoothed BCC multiplier and a continuous correction factor for glass-forming ability based on mixing enthalpy, excess entropy, and atomic-size dispersion. Comparison with experimental and computational data shows that the kinetic criterion captures changes in the lattice type expected from the valence electron concentration criterion, describes kinetic suppression of phase separation, and identifies competitive multiphase crystallization. The model also distinguishes alloys with high and low glass-forming ability. The proposed framework provides a practical approach for preliminary evaluation of kinetic phase competition in rapidly solidified multicomponent melts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Yeh, S.-K

    J.-W. Yeh, S.-K. Chen, S.-J. Lin, J.-Y. Gan, T.- S. Chin, T.-T. Shun, C.-H. Tsau, S.-Y. Chang. Nanostructured high-entropy alloys with multiple principal elements: novel alloy design concepts and outcomes.Adv. Eng. Mater.6, 299 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    Cantor, I.T.H

    B. Cantor, I.T.H. Chang, P. Knight, A.J.B. Vin- cent. Microstructural development in equiatomic multicomponent alloys.Mater. Sci. Eng. A375– 377, 213 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    Biswas, N.P

    K. Biswas, N.P. Gurao, T. Maiti, R.S. Mishra.High Entropy Materials: Processing, Properties, and Ap- plications. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Xiang, F.-Z

    H. Xiang, F.-Z. Dai, Y. Zhou.High-Entropy Ma- terials: From Basics to Applications. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Yao, H. Liu, editors.Functional High Entropy Alloys and Compounds.Wiley-VCH,Wein- heim (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Miracle, O.N

    D.B. Miracle, O.N. Senkov. A critical review of high entropy alloys and related concepts.Acta Mater. 122, 448 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Z. Wang, S. Guo, C.T. Liu. Phase selection in high- entropy alloys: from nonequilibrium to equilibrium. JOM66, 1966 (2014)

    1966

  8. [8]

    Kitagawa, H

    J. Kitagawa, H. Ueta, Y. Watanabe, T. Seki, Y. Mizuguchi, T. Nishizaki. Superconducting prop- erties of eutectic high-entropy alloy superconduc- tor NbScTiZr.Mater. Today Commun.40, 109690 (2024)

    2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Koval, V.S

    Yu.M. Koval, V.S. Filatova, V.V. Odnosum, O.A. Shcheretskyi, G.S. Firstov. Elasticity at martensitic inelastic behaviour for industrial NiTi, CuAlMn and novel high-entropy TiZrHfCoN- iCu shape-memory alloys.Metallofiz. Noveishie Tekhnol.47, 1281 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Nahavandian, E

    M. Nahavandian, E. Aydogan, J. Byggmästar, M.A. Tunes, O. El-Atwani, E. Martinez. Design kinetic parameters for improved resilience of ma- terials under irradiation.Mater. Des.257, 114419 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Zhang, L

    L. Zhang, L. Banko, W. Schuhmann, A. Lud- wig, M. Stricker. Composition-property extrapo- lation for compositionally complex solid solutions based on word embeddings.Digital Discovery4, 1578 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Kushnerov, S.I

    O.I. Kushnerov, S.I. Ryabtsev, P.O. Galagan, V.F. Bashev. Experimental validation of semi- empirical parameters for phase prediction in rapid- quenched and as-cast high-entropy alloys.J. Phys. Electron.33, No. 1, 22 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Kushnerov, V.F

    O.I. Kushnerov, V.F. Bashev. Structure and physical properties of cast and splat-quenched CoCr0.8Cu0.64FeNi high entropy alloy.East Eur. J. Phys.3, 43 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Kushnerov, S.I

    O.I. Kushnerov, S.I. Ryabtsev, V.F. Bashev. Metastable states and physical properties of Co-Cr- Fe-Mn-Ni high-entropy alloy thin films.Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst.750, 135 (2023). 8

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dekhtyarenko, V.K

    V.A. Dekhtyarenko, V.K. Nosenko, V.V. Kyrylchuk, A.V. Nosenko, O.M. Semyrga, I.K. Yevlash, V.I. Bondarchuk. Amorphous alloys as a promising class of functional materials. Pt. 1: Manufacturing methods, structure, physical and mechanical properties.Prog. Phys. Met.26, 598 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Girzhon, V

    V. Girzhon, V. Yemelianchenko, O. Smolyakov. High entropy coating from AlCoCrCuFeNi alloy, obtained by laser alloying.Acta Metall. Slovaca29, 44 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Girzhon, V.V

    V.V. Girzhon, V.V. Yemelianchenko. Obtaining High-Entropy Alloys by the Laser Alloying Method: ExperimentalResultsandTheoreticalCalculations. Prog. Phys. Met.26, 727 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    X. Yang, Y. Zhang. Prediction of high-entropy stabilized solid-solution in multi-component alloys. Mater. Chem. Phys.132, 233 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Takeuchi, A

    A. Takeuchi, A. Inoue. Quantitative evaluation of critical cooling rate for metallic glasses.Mater. Sci. Eng. A304–306, 446 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    Takeuchi, A

    A. Takeuchi, A. Inoue. Classification of bulk metal- lic glasses by atomic size difference, heat of mixing and period of constituent elements and its appli- cation to characterization of the main alloying ele- ment.Mater. Trans.46, 2817 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    D.R. Uhlmann. A kinetic treatment of glass forma- tion.J. Non-Cryst. Solids7, 337 (1972)

    1972

  14. [22]

    H.A. Davies. The formation of metallic glasses. Phys. Chem. Glasses17, 159 (1976)

    1976

  15. [23]

    G. Shao, P. Tsakiropoulos. Prediction of phase se- lection in rapid solidification using time dependent nucleation theory.Acta Metall. Mater.42, 2937 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Girzhon, V.V

    V.V. Girzhon, V.V. Yemelianchenko, O.V. Smolyakov, A.S. Razzokov. Analysis of structure formation processes features in high- entropy alloys of Al-Co-Cr-Fe-Ni system during laser alloying.Results Mater.15, 100311 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Chattopadhyay, A

    C. Chattopadhyay, A. Prasad, B.S. Murty. Phase prediction in high entropy alloys – a kinetic ap- proach.Acta Mater.153, 214 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Dufanets, V

    M. Dufanets, V. Sklyarchuk, Yu. Plevachuk. Structure-sensitive properties of Cu-based binary subsystems of high-entropy Bi–Cu–Ga–Sn–Pb al- loy.Ukr. J. Phys.65, 1089 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Budai, M.Z

    I. Budai, M.Z. Benkő, G. Kaptay. Comparison of differenttheoreticalmodelstoexperimentaldataon viscosity of binary liquid alloys.Mater. Sci. Forum 537–538, 489 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Gale, T.C

    W.F. Gale, T.C. Totemeier, editors.Smithells Metals Reference Book, 8th ed. Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Battezzati, A.L

    L. Battezzati, A.L. Greer. The viscosity of liquid metals and alloys.Acta Metall.37, 1791 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Zhang, Y.J

    Y. Zhang, Y.J. Zhou, J.P. Lin, G.L. Chen, P.K. Liaw. Solid-solution phase formation rules for multi-component alloys.Adv. Eng. Mater.10, 534 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Mansoori, N.F

    G.A. Mansoori, N.F. Carnahan, K.E. Starling, T.W. Leland. Equilibrium thermodynamic proper- ties of the mixture of hard spheres.J. Chem. Phys. 54, 1523 (1971)

    1971

  24. [32]

    Kushnerov, V.F

    O.I. Kushnerov, V.F. Bashev, S.I. Ryabtsev. Depo- sition and growth of the AlCoCuFeNi high-entropy alloy thin film: molecular dynamics simulation. Springer Proc. Phys.263, 419 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Kushnerov, S.I

    O.I. Kushnerov, S.I. Ryabtsev, V.F. Bashev. Molec- ular dynamic simulation of multicomponent CoCr- FeNiMn high-entropy alloy thin film deposition. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst.769, 762 (2025). 9

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.