Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 66 references

"Anomalous Solid Solution" in Ultra-High Melting Point Oxides: A New Strategy for Developing Ultra-High Temperature Thermal Protection Coatings

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Yb doping can raise zirconia's melting point to about 2850 °C, letting plasma-sprayed YbSZ coatings survive ablation near 2780–3200 °C.

desk verdict Solid APS YbSZ coating work with a real doping sweet spot; absolute 2850/2780/3200 °C headlines rest on thin emissivity metrology, while the relative ranking and phase stability hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28258 v1 pith:WJIXAVBB submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yubo Wang , Hong Meng , Pengfei He , Shujun Hu , Chuan Sun , Ximing Duan , Xiaopeng Lu , Dingwang Yuan
show 2 more authors
Wangyu Hu Xiubing Liang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords anomaloussolidsolutionultrahighmeltingtemperatureablationresistanceytterbia-stabilizedzirconiathermalprotectionmaterialoxygenvacancyplasmaspraying
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

Ultra-high-temperature ceramics that must work in air are limited by the melting point of the oxide scale they form. Ordinary rare-earth doping of ZrO2 stops the destructive phase change but usually lowers the melting point. This paper shows that an intermediate amount of Yb2O3 does the opposite: it raises the melting point of the solid solution to roughly 2850 °C. Atmospheric-plasma-sprayed YbSZ coatings then survive plasma ablation near 2780 °C and oxyacetylene ablation near 3200 °C without melt blow-off or burn-through—temperatures the authors present as the highest reported for such coatings. Density-functional calculations attribute the rise to stronger mixed ionic-covalent Yb–O bonds and more stable oxygen vacancies at the optimum composition. The authors therefore introduce the idea of an "anomalous solid solution" as a design rule for next-generation thermal-protection oxides.

What carries the argument

The "anomalous solid solution": a composition window (roughly 15–20 mol% Yb2O3) in which rare-earth doping raises, rather than lowers, the oxide melting point through the dual effect of enhanced Yb–O mixed bonding and minimized oxygen-vacancy formation energy.

What would settle it

An independent melting-point or surface-temperature measurement on the same 15–20 mol% YbSZ composition that does not rely on mixing-rule emissivity and that fails to reproduce a melting point near 2850 °C or ablation survival above ~2700 °C.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

An appropriate Yb2O3 content in ZrO2 produces an anomalous solid solution whose melting point reaches approximately 2850 °C; the resulting plasma-sprayed coatings withstand plasma ablation to nearly 2780 °C and oxyacetylene ablation to nearly 3200 °C, the highest temperature resistance the authors report for comparable systems, because moderate Yb doping simultaneously strengthens ionic-covalent bonding and stabilizes oxygen vacancies.

Load-bearing premise

That infrared pyrometry, with emissivity estimated by a mixing rule from the pure end-members, correctly reports absolute surface temperatures of the solid-solution coatings near 2800–3200 °C.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Compositional design of oxide thermal-protection coatings can target rare-earth dopants that raise, rather than depress, melting point.
  • Optimal Yb2O3 content near 18 mol% balances hardness, modulus, fracture toughness and melting point for practical coatings.
  • The same anomalous-solid-solution logic can be screened for other lanthanide–ZrO2 or high-melting oxide hosts.
  • Failure mode under high-heat-flux plasma becomes congruent melting of the solid solution rather than phase decomposition or low-melting glassy phases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the emissivity calibration holds, the approach could push reusable leading-edge or combustor coatings beyond the ~2500 °C ceiling common in multi-component UHTCs.
  • The non-monotonic melting-point curve implies a narrow processing window; small stoichiometry drifts could erase the advantage.
  • Extending the concept to non-oxide UHTCs would require the oxidation product itself to be an anomalous solid solution, not merely the starting ceramic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports atmospheric-plasma-sprayed Yb2O3-stabilized ZrO2 (YbSZ) coatings that form single-phase cubic solid solutions and exhibit a non-monotonic melting-point maximum near ~2850 °C at intermediate Yb2O3 contents (~15–20 mol%). Ablation tests rank 18YbSZ/23YbSZ highest, with reported surface temperatures approaching ~2780 °C (plasma) and ~3180–3200 °C (oxyacetylene), framed as the highest temperature resistance among comparable systems. Structural work (XRD/Rietveld, EPR, XPS, TEM/SAED/HRTEM before and after ablation) supports a retained Fm-3m solid solution with oxygen vacancies scaling with doping. DFT (vacancy formation energies, Bader charges, charge density, PDOS) is used to argue that moderate Yb doping strengthens mixed ionic–covalent bonding and stabilizes oxygen vacancies. The authors introduce “anomalous solid solution” as a design concept for ultra-high-temperature thermal protection oxides.

Significance. If the melting-point elevation and the absolute ablation-temperature claims hold under tighter thermometry, the work is significant for UHTC coating design: it targets the melting point of the oxide scale itself rather than only interfacial architecture or glassy self-healing, and it supplies a concrete dopant window (near 18 mol% Yb2O3) with correlated mechanical, melting, and ablation trends. Strengths include coherent multi-scale phase evidence, post-ablation retention of a single-phase FCC solid solution, a doping series that peaks consistently in hardness/modulus, melting point, and ablation ranking, and DFT quantities defined from standard total-energy and charge analyses (Eqs. 3–4) rather than circular fits to the melt point. The relative composition–property story is already useful; the absolute “highest reported” service temperatures are the part that would most change practice if validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2–4.3; Abstract; Fig. 5f; Fig. 6a] §4.2 (melting-point method) and §4.3 (ablation pyrometry): Absolute temperatures that carry the abstract and Fig. 5f claims (~2850 °C melt; ~2780 °C plasma; ~3180–3200 °C oxyacetylene; “highest … as reported”) rest on IR pyrometry with emissivity of YbSZ approximated by a mixing rule from pure ZrO2 and Yb2O3, calibrated so the end-members read 2710 °C and 2413 °C. At 2800–3200 °C, modest ε errors map to large T errors, and solid-solution optics, vacancy-related absorption, APS roughness, and melt-film emissivity are neither measured nor bounded. Please quantify ε uncertainty (or measure spectral/effective emissivity on the actual coatings/melts), propagate it into T, and state how the melting-point peak and literature ranking shift under plausible ε bounds. Relative ranking versus Yb content can remain; the load-bearing absolute headlines and cross-paper comparison need this.
  2. [§2.3; Fig. 5a–b; Abstract] Fig. 5a–b versus Fig. 6a: Plasma failure temperatures track the measured melting-point trend and are interpreted as congruent melt blow-off under high heat flux/velocity, whereas oxyacetylene reaches ~3180 °C without bulk failure for 18/23YbSZ and is attributed to lower heat flux, thermal-gradient cracking, and interfacial oxidation. That mechanistic distinction is plausible, but the paper still markets ~3200 °C as an ultimate temperature-resistance property alongside the melting point. Clarify in the main text (not only the discussion) what “ultimate ablation temperature” means in each test—onset of melt blow-off, burn-through, or survival without macroscopic failure—and avoid equating the oxyacetylene surface reading with a material melting limit when the dominant failure mode is not melting.
  3. [§2.3; Fig. 5f] Fig. 5f comparison: The claim of superior temperature resistance versus prior UHTC/coating studies is central to the contribution framing. Test geometry, heat flux, gas velocity, duration protocol (progressive ramp vs isothermal hold), pyrometer type/band, and emissivity treatment differ across the cited works and are only partly specified here (oxyacetylene ~2.4 MW m−2, ~200 m s−1; plasma ~11 MW m−2, ~450 m s−1; 300 s ramp). Either restrict the comparison to studies with documented comparable diagnostics and report those conditions side-by-side, or soften “highest … as reported” to a conditions-qualified statement. As written, the ranking is not yet on an equal footing with the melting-point elevation result.
  4. [§2.4; Fig. 6; Eq. (3)–(4)] §2.4 / Fig. 6b–c: The mechanistic peak (most favorable vacancy formation energy and maximum Yb net charge at 14.3 mol% Yb2O3) is aligned with the experimental melt-point maximum in the 15–20 mol% window, which is a strength. However, formation energies are strongly negative at low doping and become positive above the optimum; the text infers that “sparsely distributed oxygen vacancies stabilize the cubic fluorite structure and thereby elevate its melting point.” Vacancy formation energy and melting point are related only indirectly. Please tighten the causal chain—e.g., with computed cohesive/bonding metrics versus composition, phonon or MD melting indicators, or explicit comparison to a known melting-point-depressing dopant at the same vacancy level—so the “synergistic ionic–covalent + vacancy stability” claim is not left as a correlation with formation energy alone.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract; §2.3; §3] Abstract and §1 state oxyacetylene ultimate temperature “up to nearly … 3200 °C” while §2.3 and the conclusion use 3182 °C / 3180 °C; harmonize the quoted values and significant figures.
  2. [§2.1; Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) Kröger–Vink notation is fine; ensure consistent rendering of V_O^{••} and primes across PDF/HTML.
  3. [§2.4; §4.4] Experimental doping series is 8/13/18/23/28 mol% Yb2O3; DFT uses 6.7/10.3/14.3/18.5/23.1 mol%. A short note that SQS supercell stoichiometries approximate the experimental grid would help the reader.
  4. [§2.2; Fig. 4d] Fig. 4d CTE is from MD (NEP89); state clearly in the figure caption that values are simulated, and note the lack of experimental CTE for the coatings when discussing mismatch with Ta10W (Fig. S2).
  5. [§2.2–2.3; §3] Fracture toughness falls with Yb content and drops sharply above 23 mol% (§2.2). The conclusion flags toughening as future work; a sentence in §2.3 on whether cracking contributed to any non-melt failures would connect property data to ablation modes.
  6. [Throughout] Minor language/typos: “Dingwang Y uan”, “p revious studies”, “u ltrahigh”, “t emperatures”, “nanostructur e”, “generate d”; standardize “oxyacetylene” hyphenation and °C spacing.
  7. [Table S2; §2.1] Table S2 composition written Zr0.64Yb0.36O1.9742 for “18YbSZ”—confirm mol% convention (Yb2O3 vs cation fraction) so nominal 18% matches the refined occupancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: melting points, ablation limits, and DFT defect metrics are independently measured or computed, not restatements of fitted inputs.

full rationale

This is an experimental materials paper whose central claims rest on measured melting points (recalescence cooling curves), measured ablation surface temperatures (IR pyrometry under oxyacetylene and plasma), and standard first-principles defect energetics/Bader charges (Eqs. 3–4), none of which reduce by construction to each other. Composition choice is guided by an external Calphad liquidus peak (Fabrichnaya & Seifert 2010), not by a self-citation or a uniqueness theorem from the present authors; the subsequent melting-point peak near 15–20 mol% Yb2O3 and the ablation ranking are new measurements, not algebraic rearrangements of that input. DFT formation energies and net Yb charges are computed from total-energy definitions and are only correlated post hoc with the measured melt-point trend—they are not fitted to force the melt point. Labeling the known liquidus elevation an “anomalous solid solution” and proposing its use for UHTC coatings is framing, not a circular derivation. Emissivity mixing-rule uncertainty affects absolute temperature accuracy (a correctness concern) but does not make the reported T values tautological with the inputs. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, load-bearing self-citation chain, or smuggled ansatz was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Load-bearing content is experimental plus standard DFT/MD. The central performance claim depends on optical pyrometry assumptions, charge-neutrality vacancy stoichiometry, and transfer of bulk melt behavior to sprayed coatings under different heat fluxes. No new fundamental physical constants; the branded “anomalous solid solution” is a named interpretation of a known lanthanide–zirconia liquidus feature plus new coating data.

free parameters (3)
  • YbSZ emissivity (mixing rule from ZrO2 and Yb2O3) = approximate linear mix of ZrO2/Yb2O3 emissivities (not numerically tabulated)
    Used to convert IR radiance to temperature for both melting-point recalescence and ablation surface T; pure end-members fixed to 2710 °C and 2413 °C then mixed. Absolute melt/ablation numbers move with this choice.
  • Yb2O3 doping series (8, 13, 18, 23, 28 mol%) = 18 mol% highlighted as optimum
    Discrete composition grid centered on the prior Calphad liquidus maximum; peak performance at 18YbSZ is selected from this hand-chosen set.
  • DFT supercell Yb2O3 levels (6.7–23.1 mol%) and vacancy configurations via SQS = minimum Ef at 14.3 mol% Yb2O3
    Discrete model compositions and random vacancy placements determine the reported formation-energy minimum (−3.615 eV at 14.3 mol%) and net-charge peak; not unique experimental observables.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Optical pyrometry with end-member-calibrated mixing-rule emissivity yields absolute surface and solidification temperatures accurate enough to rank melt points and claim ~2850 °C / ~3200 °C performance.
    Stated in §4.2–4.3; underpins every ultra-high-T number in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Yb3+ substituting on Zr4+ is charge-compensated by oxygen vacancies as in Kröger–Vink Eq. (1), and EPR g≈2.003 intensity tracks that vacancy population.
    §2.1 structural interpretation and defect chemistry used for the DFT models.
  • domain assumption Plasma-ablation failure temperature under high heat flux and gas velocity is a practical proxy for congruent melting of the solid solution, not dominated by unrecognized low-melting secondary phases or substrate failure.
    §2.3 mechanism discussion and post-ablation TEM argument.
  • domain assumption SCAN meta-GGA total energies, PAW potentials, and SQS supercells sufficiently capture relative oxygen-vacancy formation energetics and Yb–O bond character trends versus doping.
    §4.4 computational methods supporting §2.4 mechanism.
  • standard math Standard crystallography and continuum mechanics relations for XRD Rietveld, Oliver–Pharr nanoindentation, and linear CTE from MD lattice constants.
    §4.2 characterization and Eq. (5).
invented entities (1)
  • “Anomalous solid solution” (as a named UHTC design concept) independent evidence
    purpose: Label lanthanide doping that raises rather than lowers host oxide melting point and promote it as a compositional design strategy for thermal protection.
    Phenomenon of elevated liquidus in Zr–Yb–O was already in cited Calphad work; the paper invents the brand and application framing more than a new physical object. Independent handle is the measurable liquidus/melt-point vs composition curve.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Anomalous Solid Solution" in Ultra-High Melting Point Oxides: A New Strategy for Developing Ultra-High Temperature Thermal Protection Coatings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJIXAVBB

@misc{pith2026260728258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Anomalous Solid Solution" in Ultra-High Melting Point Oxides: A New Strategy for Developing Ultra-High Temperature Thermal Protection Coatings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJIXAVBB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28258}
}
abstract

The high-temperature performance of ultra-high temperature ceramics (UHTCs) in atmospheric environment is fundamentally governed by their melting points of oxidation products. Typical high-melting-point oxides, such as ZrO2, undergo phase transformations at elevated temperatures, leading to structural instability. Although doping with rare-earth or transition-metal cations can suppress these transformations, it often results in a reduction in melting point, thereby limiting practical service temperature. Here, ytterbia-stabilized zirconia (YbSZ) coatings are prepared via atmospheric plasma spraying, achieving a remarkable increase in the melting point of ZrO2 to approximately 2850 $^\circ\mathrm{C}$ and raising the ultimate plasma and oxyacetylene ablation temperature up to nearly 2780 $^\circ\mathrm{C}$ and 3200 $^\circ\mathrm{C}$, which is the highest temperature resistance property as reported. Notably, this performance enhancement originates from a synergistic mechanism of strengthened ionic-covalent mixed bonding and improved oxygen vacancy stability. Based on these findings, the concept of "anomalous solid solution" is firstly proposed to be used in the area of ultra-high temperature protection, which provides new insights into the compositional design of UHTC systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28258 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3a presents the backscattered electron (BSE) image of the 18YbSZ coating specimen. The cross-sectional image shows that the sample consists of (from bottom to top) a tantalum-tungsten alloy substrate, a Ta10W transition layer, and a YbSZ ceramic top coating. The thickness of the top YbSZ coating is approximately 710 μm. Some pores are observed within the coating, while no distinct vertical through￾thickness c… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references

  1. [1]

    A. B. Peters, D. Zhang, S. Chen, C. Ott, C. Oses, S. Curtarolo, I. McCue, T. M. Pollock, S. Eswarappa Prameela, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3328

    2024

  2. [2]

    Y . Liu, H. Wang, J. Hao, Y . Cheng, S. Dong, P. Hu, W. Han, X. Zhang, Extreme Mater. 2025, 1, 38

    2025

  3. [3]

    B. C. Wyatt, S. K. Nemani, G. E. Hilmas, E. J. Opila, B. Anasori, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2024, 9, 773

    2024

  4. [4]

    T. A. Parthasarathy, R. A. Rapp, M. Opeka, R. J. Kerans, Acta Mater. 2007, 55, 5999

    2007

  5. [5]

    Zhang, Y

    D. Zhang, Y . Yu, X. Feng, Z. Tian, R. Song, Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 1349

    2022

  6. [6]

    X. Yan, L. Constantin, Y . Lu, J.-F. Silvain, M. Nastasi, B. Cui, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2018, 101, 4486

    2018

  7. [7]

    J. Gild, Y . Zhang, T. Harrington, S. Jiang, T. Hu, M. C. Quinn, W. M. Mellor, N. Zhou, K. Vecchio, J. Luo, Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 37946

    2016

  8. [8]

    Materiomics 2026, 12, 101173

    Luo J., J. Materiomics 2026, 12, 101173

    2026

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Li, G.-J

    F. Li, G.-J. Zhang, Y . Zhou, X. Zhang, J. Adv. Ceram. 2026, 15, 9221231

    2026

  2. [10]

    X. Bu, P. He, P. Zhang, C. Sun, X. Liang, Y . Xing, X. Duan, Y . Wang, Z. Hu, Corros. Sci. 2024, 237, 112316

    2024

  3. [11]

    Zheng, P

    J. Zheng, P. He, F. Jiang, C. Sun, S. Hu, Y . Xing, X. Duan, X. Liang, Z. Hu, J. Alloys Compd. 2025, 1010, 177379

    2025

  4. [12]

    Y . Chu, H. Yu, Y . Liu, L. Zhuang, Z. Zhao, Y . Tian, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2026, 36, e74823

    2026

  5. [13]

    J. Zhao, Y . Zhang, H. Gong, Y . Zhang, X. Wang, X. Guo, Y . Zhao, Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 5232

    2015

  6. [14]

    P. Gao, C. Liu, T. Zheng, H. Wang, D. Han, S. Wang, S. Li, B. Yang, H. Zhang, Ceram. Int. 2026, 52, 24974

    2026

  7. [15]

    J. Wang, L. Chen, J. Feng, J. Adv. Ceram. 2025, DOI 10.26599/JAC.2025.9221226

    2025

  8. [16]

    C. Fang, S. Dong, X. Zhang, Y . Zhou, J. Adv. Ceram. 2025, DOI 10.26599/JAC.2025.9221193

    2025

  9. [17]

    V . L. Stolyarova, V . A. V orozhtcov, Acta Astronaut. 2025, 229, 866

    2025

  10. [18]

    Fabrichnaya, H

    O. Fabrichnaya, H. J. Seifert, Calphad 2010, 34, 206

    2010

  11. [19]

    X. Li, C. Deng, S. Niu, C. Wang, Y . Sun, W. Su, M. Liu, Z. Deng, X. Zhang, Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 16632

    2021

  12. [20]

    Fabris, A

    S. Fabris, A. T. Paxton, M. W. Finnis, Acta Mater. 2002, 50, 5171

    2002

  13. [21]

    J. S. Thorp, A. Aypar, J. S. Ross, J. Mater. Sci. 1972, 7, 729

    1972

  14. [22]

    Y . A. Teterin, A. Y . Teterin, Russ. Chem. Rev. 2002, 71, 347. Page | 26

    2002

  15. [23]

    B. P. Kore, A. Kumar, L. Erasmus, R. E. Kroon, J. J. Terblans, S. J. Dhoble, H. C. Swart, Inorg. Chem. 2018, 57, 288

    2018

  16. [24]

    Nisar, S

    A. Nisar, S. Bajpai, M. M. Khan, K. Balani, Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 21689

    2020

  17. [25]

    H. Luo, Y . Zeng, H. Liang, J. Pu, L. Fang, W. Zhang, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2025, 108, e20667

    2025

  18. [26]

    Z. Qu, K. Wei, Q. He, R. He, Y . Pei, S. Wang, D. Fang, Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 7926

    2018

  19. [27]

    Galizia, D

    P. Galizia, D. Sciti, Composites, Part B 2023, 248, 110369

    2023

  20. [28]

    X. Li, S. Chen, C. Tan, Z. Yan, D. Hu, Q. Fu, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2025, 108, e70030

    2025

  21. [29]

    Kim, Y .-W

    Y.-H. Kim, Y .-W. Kim, K.-Y . Lim, S.-J. Lee, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2019, 39, 144

    2019

  22. [30]

    C. Yan, P. Luo, J. Zhang, Z. Zhao, R. Liu, Mater. Today Commun. 2024, 41, 110477

    2024

  23. [31]

    Spores, E

    R. Spores, E. Pfender, Surf. Coat. Technol. 1989, 37, 251

    1989

  24. [32]

    Miller-Oana, P

    M. Miller-Oana, P. Neff, M. Valdez, A. Powell, M. Packard, L. S. Walker, E. L. Corral, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2015, 98, 1301

    2015

  25. [33]

    Seong, C

    Y.-H. Seong, C. Baek, J. -H. Kim, J. H. Kong, D. S. Kim, S. -H. Lee, D. K. Kim, Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 8505

    2018

  26. [34]

    Y . Zeng, D. Wang, X. Xiong, X. Zhang, P. J. Withers, W. Sun, M. Smith, M. Bai, P. Xiao, Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15836

    2017

  27. [35]

    K. Hu, J. Deng, Y . Wang, J. Ma, S. Kou, S. Fan, Mater. Charact. 2025, 229, 115548

    2025

  28. [36]

    S. Wu, X. Yang, R. Zhang, X. Luo, A. Shi, Z. Zhang, Q. Huang, Ceramics International 2022, 48, 22885

    2022

  29. [37]

    J. Ma, S. Kou, S. Yang, Y . Liu, C. Luan, P. Wang, S. Fan, Corros. Sci. 2022, 209, 110802

    2022

  30. [38]

    J. Ma, S. Kou, Y . Ma, X. Ma, C. Luan, J. Deng, S. Fan, C. Liu, L. Cheng, Surf. Coat. Technol. 2023, 452, 129104

    2023

  31. [39]

    Y . Bai, P. Wang, B. Zhang, H. Du, L. Cheng, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2022, 42, 3107

    2022

  32. [40]

    R. Wang, N. Li, J. Zhang, B. Liu, N. Yan, Q. Fu, Corros. Sci. 2022, 206, 110551

    2022

  33. [41]

    J. Li, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhao, Y . Zou, J. Lv, J. Li, Composites, Part B 2023, 251, 110467

    2023

  34. [42]

    X. Jiao, Q. He, M. Qing, Y . Wang, X. Yin, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 24, 3235

    2023

  35. [43]

    C. Chen, W. Li, Q. Zhen, R. Li, X. Li, J. Wang, Surf. Coat. Technol. 2025, 509, 132184

    2025

  36. [44]

    Z. Zhao, K. Li, W. Li, Corros. Sci. 2021, 189, 109598

    2021

  37. [45]

    Y . Yu, G. Feng, Y . Jia, H. Li, Corros. Sci. 2024, 226, 111633

    2024

  38. [46]

    Zhang, Z

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhang, X. Zhang, K. Wu, R. Riedel, D. Hu, Y . Xu, L. Wu, J. Sun, Corros. Sci. 2026, 260, 113499

    2026

  39. [47]

    Sujatha, S

    K. Sujatha, S. Israel, C. Anzline, K. S. Syed Ali, R. A. J. R. Sheeba, P. Richard Rajkumar, Physica B 2019, 555, 21

    2019

  40. [48]

    Morinaga, H

    M. Morinaga, H. Adachi, M. Tsukada, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 1983, 44, 301

    1983

  41. [49]

    B. H. Toby, R. B. V on Dreele, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2013, 46, 544

    2013

  42. [50]

    H. M. Rietveld, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1969, 2, 65

    1969

  43. [51]

    Momma, F

    K. Momma, F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2011, 44, 1272

    2011

  44. [52]

    W. C. Oliver, G. M. Pharr, J. Mater. Res. 2004, 19, 3

    2004

  45. [53]

    K. Liu, M. Ostadhassan, B. Bubach, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 35, 1311. Page | 27

    2016

  46. [54]

    Q. Zeng, Y . Feng, S. Xu, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 42, 187

    2017

  47. [55]

    Y . Wu, T. J. Piccone, Y . Shiohara, M. C. Flemings, Metall. Trans. A 1987, 18, 925

    1987

  48. [56]

    O. R. J. Ackermann, S. P. Garg, E. G. Rauh, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 1977, 60, 341

    1977

  49. [57]

    Pavlik, S

    A. Pavlik, S. V . Ushakov, A. Navrotsky, C. J. Benmore, R. J. K. Weber, J. Nucl. Mater. 2017, 495, 385

    2017

  50. [58]

    W. Kohn, L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 1965, 140, A1133

    1965

  51. [59]

    V . Wang, N. Xu, J.-C. Liu, G. Tang, W.-T. Geng, Comput. Phys. Commun. 2021, 267, 108033

    2021

  52. [60]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 1758

    1999

  53. [61]

    J. Sun, A. Ruzsinszky, J. P. Perdew, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2015, 115, 36402

    2015

  54. [62]

    van de Walle, Calphad 2009, 33, 266

    A. van de Walle, Calphad 2009, 33, 266

    2009

  55. [63]

    V ., Hofmann A., Sauer J., Surf

    Ganduglia-Pirovano M. V ., Hofmann A., Sauer J., Surf. Sci. Rep. 2007, 62, 219

    2007

  56. [64]

    W. Tang, E. Sanville, G. Henkelman, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2009, 21, 84204

    2009

  57. [65]

    K. Xu, H. Bu, S. Pan, E. Lindgren, Y . Wu, Y . Wang, J. Liu, K. Song, B. Xu, Y . Li, T. Hainer, L. Svensson, J. Wiktor, R. Zhao, H. Huang, C. Qian, S. Zhang, Z. Zeng, B. Zhang, B. Tang, Y . Xiao, Z. Yan, J. Shi, Z. Liang, J. Wang, T. Liang, S. Cao, Y . Wang, P. Ying, N. Xu, C....

    2025

  58. [66]

    Liang, K

    T. Liang, K. Xu, E. Lindgren, Z. Chen, R. Zhao, J. Liu, E. Berger, B. Tang, B. Zhang, Y . Wang, K. Song, P. Ying, N. Xu, H. Dong, S. Chen, P. Erhart, Z. Fan, T. Ala-Nissila, J. Xu, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2026, 6, 789. Page | 28 Supplementary Materials Table S1. Apparent density and...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.